Peer-Review Policy

Peer Review Model

Al-Rafidain Dental Journal uses a double-blind peer review: both author and reviewer identities remain confidential. Manuscripts are typically evaluated by two independent experts, and final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer Selection

Authors may suggest reviewers or request exclusions with valid reasons.

Suggested reviewers must have an institutional email and, if available, a valid ORCID ID.

Falsifying reviewer information is strictly prohibited and will result in rejection and potential further action.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback

Assess scientific quality, relevance, clarity, and ethical integrity

Recommend accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject

Ethics and Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential and must not be shared or used outside the review

Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline reviews if needed

COPE guidelines are followed; violations may lead to removal from the reviewer pool

Timelines

Respond to review invitations within 7 days

Submit reviews within 15 days

Extensions must be requested promptly

Review Editing and Anonymity

Editorial staff may edit reports for clarity or tone without altering meaning

Anonymity is maintained between authors and reviewers

Appeals

Authors may appeal rejections if based on factual errors or reviewer bias/misconduct. Appeals are handled by a senior editor or an independent panel.

Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers may be acknowledged annually or via platforms like Publons or ORCID, with consent

Misconduct Handling

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or review manipulation is investigated per the Ethics & Misconduct Policy and COPE guidelines